1. Rebel Cummings-Sauls Ryan Otto
Pilot Project has Potential to Project Institutional Repository to the Next Level
Rebel Cummings-Sauls
Ryan Otto

2. Institutional Repositories
The point of IRs, in my view, isn’t to disrupt the existing scholarly publishing system, but to allow it to be expanded and diversified by providing access and stewardship for material that mainly falls outside of the traditional scholarly publishing system as it exists today – both material created by faculty and material created by the institution, or departments or other groups within it.
Clifford Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information
We agree! Institutional repositories showcase a variety of their institution’s scholarly, and creative activities by hosting digital objects such as presentations, publications, or images.
How do we represent the most material from our institution?  What material do you represent at your institution?
One possible way to accomplish this…
metadata only institutional repository records.

3. What We Will Cover Compare old & new scholarly ingest workflows
Present survey findings from the campus 
Chat about next steps
Surveyed community about including metadata only records in the IR

4. Digital Scholarship @ K-State
Full text only vs including metadata records
"documenting as much of K-State’s scholarly output as possible"
Approximately 60% increase in representation 

5. Record Comparison

6. What are metadata only records?
Repository records with no digital objects, just links.

7. Workflow Overview Previous Process Index Searches Citation Manager
Workflow Management System
Dedupe Records
Create Citations & Authors
Local permission policy database
Authors Again
Create & Edit Metadata for Individual Items 
Upload Items One at a Time
Purposed Process
Index Searches
Citation Manager
Output to Desired Schema
Dedupe Records
Automated Permission Check
Confirm Permissions
Add Metadata & Apply Authority Control
Download & Connect Articles
Upload Records through Batchloading

8. Workflow Overview

9. The Project Overview Citation Manager Normalize
EndNote or
RefWorks
Citation Manager
Excel
Spreadsheet
Normalize
Indexes
Affiliation name searches in either Scopus or Web of Science (WoS)
Export records to format corresponding to preferred citation manager
Citation Managers (Optional)
Normalizes metadata from different schemas
Automatically attaches a unique record identifier
Options for customized export schema
•Normalizes metadata from different schemas
•Automatically attaches a unique record identifier
•Options for customized export schema

10. The Project Overview By hand, match & sort by title & ISSN
Publisher Version Allowed in IR?
Permissions Check via Sherpa/ Romeo API
Deduplication
By hand, match & sort by title & ISSN
Automated via citation manager
Deduplication
By hand, match & sort by title & ISSN
Automated via citation manager
Automated permissions checking
Is the publisher version allowed in IR?

11. Add Metadata & Authority Control Publisher Version Allowed in IR?
The Project Overview
Add Metadata & Authority Control No
Publisher Version Allowed in IR? IR
Ingest
Add Manuscript
Hands-On Verify Permissions
Yes
Version of Record Allowed
Confirm Sherpa/Romeo
Confirm & add embargo
Confirm & add rights statements
CC license (if applicable)
Download & prepare manuscript

12. Add Metadata & Authority Control
The Project Overview
Add Metadata & Authority Control No
Publisher Version Allowed in IR? IR
Ingest
Add Manuscript
Hands-On Verify Permissions
Yes
Name & keyword  formatting
Author identifiers
Institutional
ORCID
College/Department affiliation
Prepare for IR ingest

13. Survey Results Three different user groups: Faculty Libraries Students
Survey varied slightly between groups.
Rather than seek feedback from all faculty at K-State, we chose to seek feedback only from those faculty who had records in Web of Science or in Scopus for items published between January and March of 2015. We decided to seek feedback from every full-time employee of K-State Libraries and as many undergraduate and graduate students as possible.
Five questions were shared among all three surveys:
A multiple-choice question asking what type of results they prefer when searching for scholarly papers on a topic.
A multiple-choice question asking how they would feel if they were to find a metadata-only record about a topic of interest. Note: this question was preceded by a screenshot of a metadata-only record.
An open-response question asking what they would do to obtain the full-text of an item described by a metadata-only record. Note: this question was preceded by another screenshot of a metadata-only record.
A Likert scale question asking for their opinions about how the addition of metadata-only records would impact their ability to find scholarly articles authored by K-State faculty.
An open-response question inviting them to share feedback. 
The faculty survey had two unique questions:
A multiple-choice question asking what type of records describing their research they would like to see in K-REx.
An open-response question asking if they have any objections to having metadata-only records describing their research in K-REx. 
The Library Employee survey had three unique questions:
An open-response question asking if they know of any concerns faculty might have about the addition of metadata-only records to K-REx.
An open-response question asking if they know of any concerns students might have about the addition of metadata-only records to K-REx. 
An open-response question asking if they know of any concerns they or other library employees might have about the addition of metadata-only records to K-REx. 
The student survey had no unique questions.

14. Search Results- Faculty
The majority of faculty had positive responses about including metadata only content in K-REx.

15. Search Results- Libraries
Over half of the faculty, librarians included, preferred to have a more comprehensive list of search results in their area of research. 

16. Faculty Response to Metadata
The majority of faculty outside the library indicated they were very or somewhat pleased about having metadata only content if it provided more comprehensive search results and provided a complete picture of their digital scholarship.

17. Faculty Listing Preference
The faculty also overwhelmingly preferred to have a complete record of their digital scholarship rather than a partial one or none at all.

18. Survey Results- Students
No Responses from students.
The team could have drawn conclusions from this, but we decided not to address.
But we can here for a moment...What do you think this means?  

19. IR Next Steps Single source for showcasing campus scholarship
Faculty & Department Webpages
Social Media
Discovery Layer
Single source for showcasing campus scholarship
Represent manuscript whether hosted on IR or on publisher site
Social scholarly network link to IR for durable and consistent URLs

20. Next Steps- Integration
Specific Department
Faculty/Department 
Promote more works of the authors, even without full-text, and can even represent non-traditional scholarly works.
Food Science and Nutrition, Mathematics, past OA champions
Arts, Humanities, Theater, Social Sciences, Music and Dance
RSS or system feeds integrates records into faculty and department web pages

21. Next Steps- Integration
Systems on campus 
I.e. accreditation reports 
Open access tools
OAButton
UnPaywall
Business and Food Science and Nutrition
OA Button, Unpaywall, Pubmed, etc
Metadata only records may lead to a loss of effectiveness for tools like OA Button and Unpaywall
Upcoming NISO standard may solve this

22. Next Steps- Harvests Current- Web of Science and Scopus
Possibilities?  Google, Microsoft, Elsevier, SHARE/CHORUS, Open API's
Controlling where records are harvested into
Google
Metadata only records in IRs distort search results
Deprioritize actual full-text content for the IR

23. Questions?
Please contact us at: Rebel Cummings-Sauls - Director Ryan Otto - Digital Scholarship Librarian